Talk:Sleepers (film)

Cable disclaimers

The version of the film I've seen on US cable, although uncut, contains disclaimers before the end credits stating that the New York youth correctional authorities and the Manhattan district attorney's office deny that the events in the film took place, also that Carcaterra stands by his story. Ellsworth 23:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently this cable disclaimers are used elsewhere in the world - I saw the film on Dutch TV while visiting Amsterdam. Ellsworth 00:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I own the film on VHS and it includes the disclaimers as well. Thief12 (talk) 01:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The same for the European retail DVD release — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.164.187.139 (talk) 23:15, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1979 or 1981

I changed the year of the 2nd half of film back to 1981. In the bar scene, immediately before killing Nokes, John and Tommy overhear two businessmen talking about Reagan administration policies. Ellsworth 19:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The year is also clearly shown on the screen as the second half starts. Thief12 (talk) 01:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fiction

Shouldn't the article mention that the story was all lies? (79.67.110.251 (talk) 13:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC))[reply]

I don't know if it's been decisively shown the book was "all lies," but there was certainly a great deal of controversy around its veracity, and that controversy reignited when the movie was released. So, yes, this needs to be discussed in the entry. Jimbonator (talk) 20:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the more I'm reading about it, the more stuff like this comes up http://www.nydailynews.com/pretenda-lorenzo-carcaterra-claims-film-autobiographical-fact-based-truths-dull-childhood-article-1.737480 - which eventually makes saying "there was controversy around its veracity" just seem silly. I would read further, but there seems no need - the newspaper reports have convinced me "all lies" is pretty much obviously what it accounts to. People are understandably fooled by the book publisher putting "Non-fiction" on it and raking in the money, and irresponsible comments from the movie director like, who cares if it's true or not. One of these newspapers noted that the writer of the fake Howard Hughes biography went to jail for 15 years for fraud. Times have changed! I hope these people have their "Oprah moment" when they realize that a position of not caring whether things are fact or fiction - particularly things sold as fact - just doesn't cut it.

Interestingly, in the movie in the courtroom, truth or lie doesn't matter - at least, lying in court is weighed against punishing the abusive guards etc - some of these same issues. I'm not sure if there's noble dimension to calling the book/film a true story though. It's just a money-making scam and con game. Which seems to have worked. 110.20.157.59 (talk) 07:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Authenticy

Yes, this article (and the book article) desperately needs some words about autheticy! Medico80 (talk) 19:27, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plot discussion

Discussion has been asked from the film community.

Despite the insistence of word count, the plot could use a trimming. That has been done.2605:E000:1301:4462:8C64:A6E3:E51C:CFEC (talk) 15:08, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, your claimed motivation is the word count, which is dubious. The word count is fine. The issue is that your writing is of poor quality and does not improve the article. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 15:13, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the Los Angeles IP's version was poor quality writing, and should be reverted. Binksternet (talk) 15:45, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, agree that the IP editor's good faith attempt at improvement (based on reducing word count) has not enhanced the article. No more edit-warring please. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:29, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, is there good reason for this page being linked to Wikipedia:WikiProject Organized crime? Having watched the film two or three times, I fail to see real justification for this, unless every film about a group of criminals working together (The Italian Job?) deserves the same. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:52, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I wondered about that myself, as well as the film's inclusion in the Mafia films category. The only justification is that one minor character is a former Mafioso. Other than that, there is no connection. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 19:33, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK - I've removed that organised crime template as being irrelevant. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]